Should I be brutally honest in my exit interview?

The Australian Public Service is moving to centralise merit lists for senior executive roles.

I’ve resigned from my job after a long time. I have some good memories and have experienced a few things that leave a bad taste in my mouth. One thing in particular I have found unacceptable.

The organisation is known for doing thorough exit interviews and I have agreed to do one. Should I be honest and broach some tough realities, or should I be restrained for the sake of not burning bridges?

I spoke with Professor Denise Jepsen about your question. She’s an organisational psychologist who works in Macquarie University’s Department of Management.

Professor Jepsen told me that one way of looking at your dilemma is to consider an employment relationship model known as Exit, Voice, Loyalty, Neglect. The model is named after the choices an employee might select from as a response to all sorts of circumstances, including dissatisfaction at work.

“This reader has chosen to exit the organisation after a long period of loyalty, and the question now is whether they want to raise their voice at the impending exit interview,” Professor Jepsen explained. Her answer to that question is yes, you should be honest, but how forthcoming you are with information and specifics is important.

“Do they need to be fully open and tell all? Given they have been with the organisation a long time, they may have an idea of how the information from that interview is likely to be used. Is it used as a trap to investigate the manager, department or culture, or is it a genuine attempt to debrief and learn from the departing employee?”

This brings us to a concept known as a psychological contract, which Professor Jepsen defines as the unwritten promises and expectations we, as employees, enter into with our employer.

“[A psychological contract] often broken or breached at work. When these breaches invoke strong emotions, then it feels like violation,” she says.

Professor Jepsen says you may feel that your trust has been violated when it comes to that “one thing in particular [you’ve] found unacceptable”.

“Assuming the reader has already expressed their feelings about that thing as part of their decision to leave the organisation, I’d suggest they attend the exit interview and both express their disappointment on that one thing and recognise the otherwise long and satisfactory relationship [between them and their employer].”

Professor Jepsen acknowledges that this may leave you worrying that you’ve let the organisation ‘get away with’ that deeply unpleasant thing.

With that in mind, could there be an alternative course of action? A discussion so frank that it does indeed put those bridges you mentioned at risk of fire damage?

“It depends on how much they feel they need to express their voice, and whether that one thing is likely to be ongoing. Your reader is weighing up the opportunity to protect future employees versus protecting their own relationship. The exit interview is unlikely to address or resolve the issue, but does give your reader the chance to voice their concerns.”

Send your Work Therapy questions to [email protected]

The Business Briefing newsletter delivers major stories, exclusive coverage and expert opinion. Sign up to get it every weekday morning.